TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 45,398/- was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to produce application form i.e. ARE-I in respect of goods exported by them. 3. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Notification No. 11/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, the Revenue prescribed a procedure for refund of CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviously this application was known as AR-4 and the Tribunal in the case of Wonderseal Packing v. CCE reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 626 held that the refund claim of credit on export of goods not deniable merely for failure to follow AR-4 procedure if the claim is otherwise admissible. 4. The contention is that other documents which were produced along with application showing the export of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming refund in respect of the credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final product which were cleared for export as per the notification the manufacturer has to submit form along with bill of lading or shipping bill or export application duty certified by the officer of Customs to show that the goods have been exported. In the present case, the appellant had produced document such as shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
